In a move that has left legal experts scratching their heads and late-night comedians rubbing their hands in glee, former President Donald Trump has announced his intention to revoke federal funding from sanctuary cities. This grand gesture, while making for sensational headlines, is about as effective as using a colander to fetch water.
The Symbolic Sword Swing
Trump’s proclamation to strip sanctuary cities of federal funds is, in essence, a symbolic act. The President’s authority to unilaterally withhold federal funding from cities or states is, fortunately, limited by that pesky document known as the Constitution. Specifically, the Tenth Amendment ensures that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. This means that any attempt to coerce local jurisdictions into enforcing federal immigration laws by cutting off their funding would likely be met with a barrage of legal challenges.
A Stroll Down Memory Lane
This isn’t the first time Trump has ventured down this legally dubious path. Back in 2017, he issued an executive order aiming to withhold federal grants from sanctuary jurisdictions. However, this move was swiftly blocked by a federal judge, who deemed it an overreach of executive power. It’s almost as if there’s a pattern here.
The Senility Saga
Observers couldn’t help but notice that during his announcement, Trump appeared more disoriented than usual. At one point, he reminisced about his “tremendous” relationship with Frederick Douglass, seemingly unaware that Douglass passed away over a century ago. He also referred to sanctuary cities as “those places where they sanctify things,” leaving many to wonder if he fully grasps the concept he’s attempting to legislate against.
The Legal Labyrinth
Legal scholars have been quick to point out that the federal government’s ability to impose conditions on funding is not absolute. According to the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, the federal government cannot force states to implement or enforce federal regulatory programs. This principle was upheld in cases like Printz v. United States, where the Supreme Court ruled that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated state sovereignty.
The Bottom Line
Trump’s latest attempt to strong-arm sanctuary cities by threatening their federal funding is, in reality, a toothless endeavor. It’s a symbolic gesture that plays well to his base but holds little water in the realm of constitutional law. And with his apparent cognitive decline, one has to wonder if he even realizes the futility of his actions.
